The Kerala State Co-Operative ... vs Vinayan K
2024 Latest Caselaw 4641 Ker

Kerala High Court

The Kerala State Co-Operative ... vs Vinayan K on 6 February, 2024

Author: P Gopinath

Bench: P Gopinath

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
  TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
                    WP(C) NO. 33778 OF 2017
PETITIONERS:

    1       THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMERS'
            FEDERATION LTD (CONSUMERFED), GANDHI NAGAR,
            ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 020,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
    2       THE SENIOR MANAGER
            NEETHI VITHARANA KENDRA, CONSUMERFED, DHARMADAM,
            THALASSERY TALUK.
            BY ADV SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1       VINAYAN K.
            S/O. GOPALAN, CHERUVARI HOUSE, PALAYAD P.O.,
            THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 661.

    2       THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
            UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT (DEPUTY LABOUR
            COMMISSIONER), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR
            COMMISSIONER, KANNUR-670 001.
            BY ADVS.
              SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH
              SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK



     THIS    WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION    ON   06.02.2024,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.33778/2017
                                      -:2:-


                             JUDGMENT

The petitioners have approached this Court

challenging Ext.P5 order issued by the Controlling

Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act.

2. When this matter is taken up for consideration

today, learned counsel for the petitioners, with reference to

Ext.P5 order, states that the case of the petitioners

regarding the claim for gratuity was never considered by

the Controlling Authority, as the petitioners had failed to

appear before the Controlling Authority on various dates as

set out in Ext.P5 order. It is submitted that the writ petition

was admitted and an interim order staying Ext.P5 order

was granted on 30-10-2017. It is submitted that the

petitioners will be satisfied if Ext.P5 is set aside and a

direction is issued to the 2 nd respondent to reconsider the

claim of the 1st respondent after affording an opportunity of

hearing to the 1st petitioner as well.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the

1st respondent would submit that, having not availed the

opportunity granted by the 2nd respondent, the petitioners

cannot be heard to contend that they were not heard before

Ext.P5 order was passed. It is submitted that even on

merits, there is nothing that would require interference

with Ext.P5 at the hands of this Court.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioners and the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent, I

am of the view that considering the limited nature of the

relief now sought for by the petitioners, this writ petition

can be disposed of, setting aside Ext.P5 and directing the

2nd respondent to reconsider the claim of the 1st respondent

in accordance with the law after affording an opportunity of

hearing to the 1st petitioner also. I make it clear that I have

not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and

Ext.P5 is being set aside only to give a chance to the

petitioners to put forth their case before the 2 nd respondent.

However, since no justifiable reason is shown for the failure

to appear before the Controlling Authority, this writ petition

can be allowed only on terms.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside

Ext.P5 and permitting the petitioners to appear before the

2nd respondent and present their case on condition that the

petitioners pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand

Only) as costs to the 1st respondent within a period of one

month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

judgment. On the petitioners producing a memo regarding

payment of costs to the 1 st respondent before the 2nd

respondent, the 2nd respondent shall reconsider the claim of

the 1st respondent after affording an opportunity of hearing

to the 1st petitioner and to the 1st respondent. The 2nd

respondent shall endeavour to adjudicate the matter as

above without further delay and at any rate within a period

of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy

of this judgment.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P. JUDGE ats

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33778/2017

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONSUMERFED RESOLVING TO REGULARIZE 523 DAILY RATED EMPLOYEES.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS APPOINTING THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE REGULAR SERVICE.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.6.16.